NavinF
10 hours ago
> need a shared filesystem for this to work
Oh oof. I thought removing that requirement would be the whole point of something named "FFmpeg-over-IP". Shared filesystem usually involves full trust between machines, bad network error handling, and setting things up by hand (different config on every distro)
steelbrain
10 hours ago
I hear you. If your usecase doesn't require live streaming of converted file, a sibling comment may fit the usecase: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41745593
NavinF
9 hours ago
Ah unfortunately my use case is similar to yours: Use Windows desktop to transcode files stored on a Linux NAS. My files are ~100GB so encoding multiple files in parallel would waste a lot of space and unnecessarily burn write cycles
steelbrain
9 hours ago
FWIW, you can run an smb server from within a docker container (on the linux side). I forget which one I used but it makes the setup painless and you can configure different auth strategies as well. Network errors (little bit of packet loss) are generally handled by the underlying OS, and in case of windows, it can use multiple network paths simultaneously to give you the aggregate bandwidth.
linuxdude314
7 hours ago
You typically don’t even have to go to that length. This is usually supported out of the box.
No idea what problem this is trying to solve. Just seems like the user wasn’t familiar enough with how to use a NAS.
NavinF
3 hours ago
> out of the box
If you're talking about how today's open source NAS software has a button for enabling NFS/SMB on a directory:
1. I built my NAS long before software like that was common. Some of my custom stuff (Eg tiered storage, storing the first few seconds of every video on flash, etc) would be a pain to migrate.
2. Some of my Windows machines are untrusted. Unlike the NAS, they have internet access. I can't give them read access to the entire NAS, but I still want to use their GPUs and CPUs to run ffmpeg on arbitrary files on the NAS.
3. I could spend a day writing more code to move files in and out of a shared directory every time I need to run ffmpeg on them. But I was hoping "FFmpeg-over-IP" would let me run a remote ffmpeg on a local file. Like calling an RPC
oefrha
5 hours ago
More like you’re not familiar enough with the video encoding performance of a typical NAS that is not in the thousand dollar range. Or what’s a NAS — it can be anything really.
yarg
8 hours ago
Couldn't you create and share a virtual file system with FUSE?
NavinF
7 hours ago
Mounting anything requires root even if you use FUSE.
There are ways to intercept writes without root and send them to another machine. Eg you could use LD_PRELOAD. But that's exactly the kind of pain in the ass that I was hoping a project named FFmpeg-over-IP would automate.
duped
5 hours ago
mount doesn't require root, but even without getting into mount namespaces, this is why fusermount3 exists
yjftsjthsd-h
8 hours ago
Like SSHFS, or something custom? And how much does that help with any of those concerns?
yarg
8 hours ago
The primary concern is trust/security.
User space limits potential security impacts, and a restricted VFS could be used to prevent clients from accessing anything that they shouldn't.
(Although I'm not even pretending to know whether or not this is a remotely good idea - my guess is that it isn't, but I'd like to know just how bad an idea it actually is.)